...because neither of us are lawyers. I mentioned the judge and the lawyer simply to lend the family a little credibility. Two legal professionals agreed with their argument. That's significant, even if other legal professionals overturn it down the line.

Now, what we were arguing was two-fold.

1) Whether the family had a moral "right" to invoke the law. You said no, because there were other people who deserved it more. Namely, Mexicans. I pointed out that this family immigrating through use of Asylum law has no effect whatsoever on Mexican immigrants. It's not like there're ten slots every year, and once they're gone, they're gone. It's a case by case basis. Some people definitely deserve to be here more than these people, and aren't able to make it happen, for various reasons, but that doesn't mean this family shouldn't come too.

2) The morality of the law itself / the judge's decision. You said that the law shouldn't apply to people like this because they're not persecuted. Going to school for a year is "no big deal." I said that, generically, being fined tens of thousands of dollars and having policemen show up every morning to take your kids to be indoctrinated in a belief system you vehemently disagree with DOES sound like persecution. The only reason you don't think they were persecuted is that you don't agree with their morals.

So. Nice little summary for us there.